A message to 10:10 -“sorry”, just doesn’t cut it

Well, it’s official. The 10:10 Carbon reduction team was embarrassed enough by their vile video showing children who disagreed with carbon reduction schemes getting blown up.

They’ve put an apology up on their website:

It reads:

Sorry.

Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called ‘No Pressure’.

With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis – writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

As a result of these concerns we’ve taken it off our website.

We’d like to thank the 50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free. We greatly value your contributions and the tremendous enthusiasm and professionalism you brought to the project.

At 10:10 we’re all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.

Onwards and upwards,

Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team

Well, I’m not impressed. The correct way to phrase it is “I’m sorry” or “We are sorry”.

Simply saying “sorry” doesn’t cut it, and removes the person(s) from the apology. It’s an admission of error, but not of guilt. I correct my own children on this point of distinction.

Their vile video continues to go viral, I think they’ll have to do better than this because they’ve released a firestorm upon themselves now. This was to be their premiere day, but its a “Black Friday” for the eco movement now.

The video keeps getting posted to YouTube faster than it can be deleted. They have a game of legal whack-a-mole on their hands on the day that was to be their premiere:

237 thoughts on “A message to 10:10 -“sorry”, just doesn’t cut it

  1. “Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.”

    That line just shows that they don’t care and it’s only a PR move to publish an apology.

  2. “I sorry” works for a child. My springer spaniel has that look
    when he gets caught drinking from the “Porcelain Dog Bowl”
    -Toilet.
    But this is more like the “Nuremberg” excuse:
    “I was following orders”.
    “Mistakes were made”.
    “Sorry “does not cut it…

  3. “Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t”

    Such weasel words. Either that, or I’m going blind. Going by the comments on their own original Youtube posting and the Guardian, I’d say *many* people DID NOT find the film extremely funny, while “some” did.

  4. I am still gobsmacked that this is real. They actually thought this was a good idea? Amazing. Goes to show how out-of-touch you can get when you surround yourself with like-minded thinkers, errr maybe not thinkers in this case, but you get the point.

    I wouldn’t be suprised if they try some damage control and make up a story that the release, outrage, removal, and apology were all part of a bigger plan to gather attention for their cause. A gamble, but a good publicity stunt?

    Any words of regret from their corporate sponsors and partners yet?

  5. Bad penny item refuses to go away.
    For those familiar with Nursery Rhymes, there’s one that features a Pop.

  6. “We’d like to thank the 50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free.”

    Great – at least we (taxpayers and customers) didn’t have to pay for the 80+ who so freely and selflessly donated their “bloody” stupidity.

    “At 10:10 we’re all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change.”

    Convincing evidence should do the trick – why do they need to get creative? Shouldn’t that little inconsistency give them a boot-laced “hint” up the backside?

  7. From 10:10’s Washington State Office in the US:

    *************************************

    On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:10 PM, XXX XXXXX wrote:

    Hi there,

    The film was intended for a British audience, and has had a variety of responses, mostly positive, but not from a global perspective. I appreciate your email and am forwarding it to UK headquarters. Please know that there was a technical glitch and the film wasn’t intended to be on the global sites, only the British site. It has been removed from all sites and here is the statement for me to send to you from the UK. Thank you again for your email. Jill

    From the UK:

    Sorry.

    Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called ‘No Pressure’.

    With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis – writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

    As a result of these concerns we’ve taken it off our website.

    We’d like to thank the 50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free. We greatly value your contributions and the tremendous enthusiasm and professionalism you brought to the project.

    At 10:10 we’re all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.

    Onwards and upwards,

    Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team

    ***********************************************

    “Mostly Positive” my sweet bippy…..

    I hope she DOES indeed forward my email to the UK office, as I told them that eating a certain type of “diet” would benefit the environment far better than their vile video!

  8. One other thing: this is why a rail against this.
    Dehumanization starts here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came
    They came first for the Communists,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and by that time no one was left to speak up

  9. I skipped watching the video when it was first mentioned on WUWT. But then Steve Milloy also posted on it and the video was made available there, and I decided to watch.
    I have to say that the 10:10 bunch have thoroughly shot themselves in the foot (also “own goal” is another apt expression), for the video puts any viewer in mind of the desperate measures that the warmists are (apparently) willing to do to impose their view of the world on the rest of us. The video should be required watching!!

    IanM

  10. I’ve been emailing every media outlet I can think of who might push this into the mainstream — Andrew Breitbart, Fox News, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, etc. Others need to do so as well. The more they hear about it, the more likely it will break out into the mainstream. Don’t just comment here on WUWT, folks — post and comment about it everywhere, and push it on people who have big web sites and TV shows. Let’s get this video on TV.

  11. I’ve just seen this. About this time last year we had Climategate. Now we’ve got this.

    How the hell is this supposed to be funny? What kind of sicko finds this funny? (Lots of Guardian commenters apparently but I can’t say that I am surprised by that.)

    It just goes to show that some of the ‘intellectuals’ who are trying to keep this CAGW nonsense going are in actual fact incredibly, unbelievably moronic – at best.

  12. But this is more like the “Nuremberg” excuse:

    I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t want their “Final Solution” for climate deniers to be seen anymore.

    Their message was crystal clear and to the point: Submit or die. No pressure.

  13. More importantly – at least for British cinema-goers – will they cancel the cinema adverts? That will tell us if they’ve got the message or not.

  14. “With climate change … decreasingly talked about in the media”

    What planet are these people living on? Decreasingly talked about in the media? We’re hit on the head with it every day in the media, be it print, television, film or internet. Truly these people are delusional.

  15. They were all quite mad to not see this disaster coming, and they remain mad for still not getting it. Some of us who recognize this whole CAGW as a Madness of the Herd have been awaiting the psychotic breaks. This is one.
    ================

  16. Interesting video interview from Franny, the 10:10 leader:

    …reveals, as usual with the more equal among us, that the 10% reduction doesn’t apply to her (because of promoting her movie). Also, towards the end, we see the misplaced evangelism that explains why she is so motivated to kill (or motivate), rather than pressure, non-believers.

    Thank goodness the church isn’t running crusades anymore.

    Take a look – before it is withdrawn!

  17. I am sorry.
    This apology does not account for the poor executive leadership in making this ghastly video in the first place nor appropriately addresses the utter insensitivity in releasing the video.
    Anyone with common sense will see that the video produced by the 10:10 Organization is not only revolting and insensitive but also a catastrophy for the green movement.
    Many people undecided on AGW and many luke warm to AGW will be disgusted enough by the video that their hearts and minds will be lost forever to the green agenda.
    Worse yet, for those alarmists that border on insanity, there is clearly a call to violence.
    All sponsors of the 10:10 Organization such as Eaga, Kyocera, O2, Sony, The Ashden Trust, Esmee Fairbairn, Wates Foundation, The GD Charitable Trust, The Funding Network, The Guardian and National Magazine Company will be equally liable in Court, at least in the US, for damages should any unfortunate issue occur as a result of this video.
    If I were one of the sponsors listed above I would insist immediately that my companies name be removed from the 10:10 Organization’s website and stop any future funding.
    Removing the video does not absolve these companies from any culpability related to the video’s creation and dissemination should some eco-wing-nut take action into their own hands.
    The CEO and President of the 10:10 Organization should step down immediately for displaying such poor judgement.

  18. It is worrying when such people do not understand when they have made a mistake. they seem to have apologised with their fingers crossed, and somehow blamed the viewers for not seeing some sick joke. Sadly people who cannot learn from their mistakes live dysfunctional lives and continue to make the same errors.

  19. He.. erm.. inrich Him.. erm.. mler and his gang did also say “I am/we are/ sorry”… and that after years of indoctrinating/brainwashing young & adult of ‘the right thinking’… only(?) after their ‘facts’ were proven totally perversed…
    “When will they ever learn… when will the eeeever learn…”?

    Brgds from Sweden
    //TJ

  20. Please notice the odd construction:

    “Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.”

    The comments everywhere were massively against this video and this construction implies a majority found it funny but a few (enough it seems) were offended to remove the video. It seems these people live in an alternate universe which slightly overlaps with ours.

    The video is out of their hands now. While Youtube may delete the video, there are hopefully sites that won’t so people can see the true nature of these people. They were proud of themselves for doing this before they saw the reaction. Patting each other on the back for ‘edginess’. I’m glad they put it up, and will be gladder still to see it posted where everyone can see what these people really fantasize about doing.

    Now I’m waiting for the next step which is to see what the commercial sponsors of 10:10 do in response. This thing has gone way out of the maker’s control in a VERY short time.

  21. What was their meaning?

    The meaning I take from it is they want to kill people who hold a different opinion.

    In the classroom, there were only two children out of about 25 who disagreed. In the real world there is much more dissent.

  22. “Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.”

    “Many” found it extremely funny, but unfortunately “some” didn’t…. . Really, that’s how you clucks saw these events unfold? A small minority of the unsophisticated knuckle dragging skeptic community didn’t get your humor? It’s hard to imagine even this crowd being that divorced from reality.

  23. Would those who found the film “extremely funny” have a similar reaction to a film that depicted gays being blown to bloody pulp by religious fundamentalists?

    Or Jews being blown up by Germans?

    Or abortion doctors being blown up by protesters?

    Or 3,000 Americans being blown up by suicide pilots?

    et cetera…

  24. Do the ‘Minnesotans 4 Global Warming’ still exist? They might find productive inspiration in this whole sorry, and yet hilarious, episode.

  25. The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

  26. Maybe they’ll also repay the taxpayers money they’ve wasted on this, just to re-enforce their apparent display of contrition.

    For them to continue to attempt to justify pretend blowing up children is reprehensible.

    90+ media types thought this was a good idea. That truly is worse than we thought.

  27. That original statement has already been modified. It now says, in part, “As a result of these concerns we’ve taken it off our website. We won’t be making any attempt to censor or remove other versions currently in circulation on the internet.”

    Comments have, however, been deleted from their Youtube page.

    My response to their “sorry if you were offended”, in part:

    Imagine how you would feel if, six months ago, skeptics had produced this video as a satire of your movement. I can only imagine the screams of outrage at how unfair such a portrayal would have been.

    Imagine if skeptics had produced this video with warmists as the exploding targets. There would have been riots in the streets. I doubt that “We was only joking, dudes. Srsly.” would have cut any ice.

    Your apology doesn’t remotely come anywhere near satisfying my outrage, and it is not accepted.

  28. “Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.”
    =========================================================
    I’m really wondering about people’s humor. What is funny about advocating violence against people with an independent and skeptical perspectives? Perhaps it was the original setting. As has already been shown, Europeans are more inclined towards youth indoctrination and conformity than us across the pond.

    As I alluded to in the other posting, I look forward to sharing the humor over some beer with the people that think this is funny. We can yuck it up with this video and perhaps some other humorist media such as Cartoons from Lustige Blätter. Later, maybe we can go into the real life application of the humor and have a side splitting discussion of one of Stalin’s purges or Pol Pot. I’m already tearing from laughter just thinking of the jovial occasion.

  29. “We’d like to thank the 50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free. We greatly value your contributions and the tremendous enthusiasm and professionalism you brought to the project.”

    Great stuff Curtis. Should have called it “Four deadings and a professional suicide.”
    Peckinpah had a much lighter touch in these matters, I feel.

  30. “Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.”

    Many found it _extremely_ funny?! Some didn’t?!

    There they go again… “My name is Gaia, for we are many”. But even discounting the many responses here on WUWT, the feedback has been, overwhelmingly, outraged, with the occasional “Ha ha! Python! Love it!” comment.

    Somehow they always manage to get it backwards!

  31. @mjb

    ‘Any words of regret from their corporate sponsors and partners yet?’

    I suspect that they are all still doing their best imitations of headless chickens. And contemplating a busy and unhappy weekend as they see the complete wreckage of their careers in marketing, sponsorship, PR and the like.

    Sad innit?? I will be crying all the way to bed (with laughter)

  32. You see, we thought it was bloody hysterical to depict our enforcers blowing up anyone who didn’t join in our programme. Apparently, there are some folks who take offence at that. Well, we’re sorry people are offended.

    </sarc>

  33. dapster says: October 1, 2010 at 10:38 am
    From 10:10′s Washington State Office in the US:

    “The film was intended for a British audience, and has had a variety of responses, mostly positive, but not from a global perspective. Please know that there was a technical glitch and the film wasn’t intended to be on the global sites, only the British site.”

    British audience, eh? Well, then what are they doing in Washington, then?

    And COME ON! A technical glitch? They didn’t know that this here internet thing was global? Really?!

  34. I can’t believe that that video was used to promote the climate change cause.
    Did the actors and celebs know what the end result was going to be? Have any been inverviewed?

    I’m speechless after seeing that video. It’s basically saying if you don’t think like us . . . you die (we will kill you)!

  35. I think their comment “Oh well, we live and learn.” Sums up the sincerity of their apology fairly well.

    It is too bad that they are not learning any science.

  36. It’s understandable. A serious case of the giggles while watching the visualization of your (secret?) fantasies of mercilessly slaughtering humorously blowing up ignorant soulless deniers unconvinced skeptics can keep you from objectively assessing the public reaction to such material.

    Isn’t it terrible the public has misinterpreted the well-meaning intentions behind this video? Bad Public! Bad!

    The outrage is clearly the fault of the overwhelmingly denier controlled skeptical-trending print and TV media due to their deliberately misinforming the public by distorting their reporting of the proven science. And for preferring to concentrate on Lindsay Lohan rather than drowning polar bear cubs.

  37. We’d like to thank the 50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free. We greatly value your contributions and the tremendous enthusiasm and professionalism you brought to the project.

    At 10:10 we’re all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.

    They didn’t spare the praise. Looks like they are proud of their work.

  38. “Please know that there was a technical glitch and the film wasn’t intended to be on the global sites, only the British site. ”

    BS. Condescending ad hoc BS. Disband 1010 . Pull all corporate sponsorship.
    Do not support child abuse.

  39. I remember not too long ago when Anthony was called out on his ‘When Warmistas Attack’ headline. I kind of agreed that it was in poor taste. After seeing this video, I no longer think that it is. Not that I imagine AGW people are inherently violent, but for any AGWer who still thinks this is ‘extremely funny’, then they obviously simply don’t care about being connected with inhumane violence. If they don’t care, then why should I?

    When Warmistas Attack, indeed.

  40. “With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh”

    Let me rewrite that for them.

    “With climate change becoming increasingly less threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this issue critical to our backers’ funding back into the headlines whilst making people annoyed enough to complain and take notice of our campaign”

  41. I wonder if the British Government will pass comment on this. The 10:10 group have been extremely successful in ingratiating themselves with it, first towards the end of the Labour Government and then continuing under the Coalition.

    Schools, councils, Ministries, the Foreign Office, even Number 10 have leapt on the bandwagon. I’m not at all sure how it has been so successful either.

  42. “decreasingly talked about in the media”

    We all know climate change (a.k.a global warming for these people) is still very much talked about and printed in the media. HOWEVER the tone has slightly changed and other viewpoints are also being talked about. So truly what they meant was they do not like the way the issue is being fronted in the media.

    Clearly, despite reverting to the excuse of convenience -British humour-, these films are no jokes for them: their prepared “sorry” confirms that’s how they deliberatly wished to express their frustration regarding the handling of climate change in the media.

    As pointed out by many here, this is not the first attempt at expressing violence to force the issue away from a democratic debate. These people are every bit of what they say, show, write and should be taken very seriously: this is no student prank, this is professional propaganda.

  43. Why has this not been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Or to the appropriate Advertising Authority? This same group would be quick enough to do it if they were on the receiving end of this trash!

    This really does expose the despicable depths to which the Green anti-west, anti-capitalist, anti-industrialist lobby will sink in order to frighten people into believing their lies.

  44. I showed the video to a friend.
    Their first question was, “so which side made this??”

    What is “funny” is that the “fluffy planet savers” don’t seem to have any idea nor realise how close they were already coming to acting like intolerant deluded dictators.

    I’m sure they think everyone else is the selfish deluded ones. Their own motives are pure, therefore nobody can accuse them of anything bad. If anyone does, they’ll just accuse them of suffering from a psychological blind spot. Well, the funny thing about blind spots is, you never see your own.

    Funny how they’ve had to pull the vide because they “missed the mark”. Gee, how did they get it sooo wrong?

    Maybe their motives are pure. But in the context of the calls to pause democracy, do whatever it takes to save the planet, and exert changes in what people value in their core, such videos come across in a different not funny context.

    “No pressure… but we’ll just kill you… oh, only joking… no, really… if we could…”

  45. Must have been meant for a British audience – none of the main stream media in the US are covering it. I guess it hasn’t passed muster with George Soros et al.

  46. Franny do us all a favour and crawl back into the cave you expect us all to be living in, you are a total idiot

  47. The obsession of CO2 obsessed people has degenerated to the equivalent of fanatic eugneicists in the early 20th century.
    The video- which they do not in any way repudiate- is a call for mass murder of skeptics.
    This is is no different than the calls for sterlization and much worse of those eugenics fanatics believed were sub-normal.
    Pol Pot, using a different criteria and not having a magic red button, used the same sort of dehumanization that 10:10 still apparently belives in to destroy Cambodians by the millions.
    AGW is a pernicious social movement that offers nothing but misery, ignorance and death.

  48. Follow Dellingpole’s hint and make sure that the commercial sponsors know that we are going to stop buying their stuff.

    Also, make sure that other random companies know that we take that approach.

    Toyota, for example.

    They will get the word.

  49. With their fanatical beliefs in AGW/CO2, these people are capable of any outrage in the name of climate.
    With the world economy resembling the 1930s great depression, adding a fascist herd mentality is truly frightening.

  50. A humorous piece about evil/torture/etc. makes fun of the oppressor, like Mel Brooks does in many of his movies. He makes the evil ones look ridiculous while they spout their slogans. In this 1010 piece there is no ridiculing of whatever evil they were trying to identify — just disposal of those who oppose the film makers’ views. It is a fantasy piece, not satire. Chilling…

  51. If you think about it, blowing up children in a classroom is a sign that the believers in AGW are losing (“loosing” for most Internet posters) the battle. After all, if you can’t brainwash 100% of very impressionable children in a closed environment then your cause is weak.

  52. What scares the bejeebers out of me is that “Many people found the resulting film extremely funny”!!

    What is wrong with these people?? Are they sociopaths? Have they no understanding of history?

    They would have done better to say nothing!! This “apology” piles more garbage on top of the filth they originally released.

    There is no sincerity in their apology whatsoever!!

  53. Andrew W says:
    October 1, 2010 at 11:01 am

    You people seem to have missed this bit: “we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.”
    No, I believe the “sincerity” of the “apology” has been duly noted.

  54. The video is funny. I’m not too put off by the gore (no pun intended.)

    But to get to the interpretation they want, you have to get past the more obvious self-parodic interpretation that’d be embraced by anyone not already Of The Faith – the warmist contingent is not QUITE ready to go to the explosive phase, but they’ll happily use any means short of that.

  55. 10:10 can apologise all it wants but, like Las Vegas, What happens on the ‘Net, Stays on the ‘Net.

  56. “The film was intended for a British audience, and has had a variety of responses, mostly positive”

    and

    “Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.”

    What a load of BS!

    I was watching the original video on Youtube right up until a few minutes before they pulled it. At that time the ‘likes’ were 61 and the ‘dislikes’ 242. I don’t think I’ve never seen a Youtube video with so many dislikes.

    Typical newspeak from 10:10 where they imply that a majority liked the video.

  57. The video- which they do not in any way repudiate- is a call for mass murder of skeptics.
    This is is no different than the calls for sterlization and much worse of those eugenics fanatics believed were sub-normal.

    Hyperbole much?

  58. I stopped watching after the second explosion. I couldn’t believe it was genuine. I thought some terminally misguided skeptics had produced the ultimate bad taste video and it would backfire and hurt the skeptic cause. This morning I learn it was the true believers idea of a humor. This isn’t humour, it’s anti-democratic fascism in the style of Al Quaeda. The victims in the video quietly and politely disagreed with a smug sadist with a bomb. The video is an insult to people being blown up by extremists every day because they quietly and politely disagree with smug sadists with bombs. Never trust anyone who believes the way to convince adults is to scare kids.
    David

  59. Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team

    Who are these people wherever do they get the money from?

    Yes in one Joe and Josephine public.

    Richard Curtis you stupid fool.

  60. I like satire and British satire is among the best, it often reaches our Canadian standards. That said, this film missed the mark, satire or no, it is in bad taste. What I find in worst taste, is this half hatred and unconvincing “sorry”. It is this obviously, gratuitous sop to public opinion, I find most offensive. Either you stand by your art or science or you don’t. To quote Harry Trueman, “If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen”. Just saying we will try and find another way simply does not cut it. These people are no longer creditable. Saying this film was meant only for British audiences tell another story too.

  61. Ow come on guys, freedom of expression and all that. Their “contribution” just gave me an idea about doing a piece loosely based on “War of the Worlds” only the red creepies that “swarm and multiply “are now green and our resistance fighters (a mix of John Connor and Mad Max) get 90 odd minutes with high tech DDT/OIL flame-throwers. The site of writhing, burning, green “creepies” will send them panic stricken for a 22nd viewing of Avatar.

  62. Andrew W:

    ‘You people seem to have missed this bit: “we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.”’

    No, we didn’t miss their “Sorry if we offended anybody so blinkered and stiff necked as to not get our little joke” non-apology.

    We got it. We just don’t accept it.

  63. Sorry for off topic but as a tip the latest bin laden recording claims something to the effect of “climate change is killing more people than war” guess al gore has a new ally

  64. I’m british, and quite used to our black humour but this is just disgusting. Slightly less funny than pushing your own kids into an oven at Auschitz.

    The eco-nazis are showing their true colours.

    This just shows they have lost the plot and lost the argument.

    What was the name of her film again? “Bloody Stupid”?

  65. This video is/was pornographic! Why do I say this?
    Dictionary defines pornography as: ‘obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.’
    As this video portrayed children, then it was also defined in my view as child pornography. As such it is/was illegal!!!!

  66. WillR says:
    October 1, 2010 at 10:48 am

    From the link:

    —Franny Armstrong, founder of 10:10[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film]

    There is more than a little parallel with the extermination of the “undesirables” during the Nazi era when virtual “killing” of five people or “amputation” is justified by the imaginary deaths of 300,000. The Jews and other “undesirables” were also falsely accused of great crimes before they were brutalized. This is how it starts: one small outrageous step at a time. At any point, the process can theoretically be stopped by people with morals and backbone, but each such little step is trivialized as “humor” or it isn’t given the importance it deserves (i.e. the public condemnation), because each such step is deliberately small, yet the goalposts get gradually and inexorably moved (or I should say the out-of-bounds lines) until all sorts of evil is firmly within bounds and justified by unimaginable (and false) accusations of harm being done by the intended targets. Dehumanization is essential to the process. The brutalization during the Nazi era could not have been carried out on the scale that it happened without this essential dehumanizing process. There are (thankfully) generally few people vile enough to do something like this when they consider the victims as fellow humans. The rest of us need to be brainwashed first to consider the victims as non-human or having committed great crimes in order to overcome the natural revulsion that normal human beings feel when doing something like this, either virtually as in this case or in reality as during the Nazi era.

    This is NOT some small thing that is happening and it is NOT due to a few radicals or people who have lost their moral compasses. It needs to be understood as a vital cog in the process of POLITICAL elimination of all dissent. When people with dissenting viewpoints are admitted as equals, both academically and humanly, the political (in this case global) brainwashing using exaggerated models based on manipulated data of questionable quality cannot continue. The public at large will demand better data and more realistic and supportable evidence, before allowing this process to continue.

    So, step 1 is to paint dissenters as unreasonable, hence the use of the label “deniers.” With this film, we see step 2 of the process, which is to dehumanize dissenters or even anyone not willing to join in enthusiastically (witness the end of the short film, where IIRC the actress playing the part of the teacher in the scene where the children get blown up is herself blown up because she thought that lending support for the cause was enough). Step 3 is the passing of regulations mandating everone’s active participation. Step 4 is elevating violations of such regulations to criminal status. Step 5 is increasingly aggressive criminal enforcement of regulations with forcible detention and imprisonment of those that in step one were labeled as “deniers” that didn’t enthusiastically “mend their ways.” There is no end to this process, as it becomes ever more restrictive and punitive. The whole process, once it is set in motion, succumbs to one of the general failings of governments: that is, that there is no good idea that will not be taken to its most costly and punitive extreme.

  67. I at first wanted nothing to do with blood and guts.
    However, in order to comment, I clicked the necessary button.
    After the two dissenting children were sent to their gory death, I could watch no more of this inane, paranoic dreadful drivel.
    I now read that the film makers have issued a so-called apology, viz “Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.”
    “Missed the mark”? Oh yes, by a long shot.
    And as for the dismissive last sentence; no, you have not learnt a thing. I doubt that you ever will.

  68. ”Onwards and upwards,”

    said by Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team

    —————–

    When good old Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team say “Onward and Upward”, I think they very likely mean the below post of mine, which I posted earlier this afternoon on the comment section of the WUWT Post “10:10 exploding skeptical children video “disappears” “:

    John Whitman says:
    October 1, 2010 at 11:21 am
    Anthony & all commenters,

    All those Oct 10 2010 activities sponsored by 10:10. You know they are going to be showing the video at all those events with kids included. Especially to the kids.

    Anyone active in 10:10 events or aware of them should put out the word.

    You know it is highly probable that is what Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team are planning.

    Speak out. I will look locally where I am and spread the word.

    John

    John

  69. [snip – calling other commenters “denialists” gets your own comment deleted. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

  70. Do not fall for all this ‘intended for British’ stuff as some sort of justification. Reaction in Britain too has been almost universally negative (see grauniad and telegraph blogs for confirmation). The US 10:10 rep is truing to pull the wool over your eyes (no surprise there).

    Though it is true that we have a more robust humour than is common in North America, this particular piece was very much disliked here as well..

  71. Wouldn’t the easiest way, in the US, to get a general 10% carbon reduction be to stop mixing ethanol with our gasoline at a 10% ratio? I think we would all appreciate the better gas mileage, cheaper gas, and lower prices for various foodstuffs as much as the vague feeling in our gut that may be the good will from the greens for reducing carbon emissions.

    One could stop ethanol deliveries for local mixing in 24hrs, have no effect on the vehicle fleet, and start geting your carbon back as soon as everyone has to fill-up again. Just asking – no pressure.

  72. I continue to suspect some amount of Pol Pot or Joe Stalin wannabee fantasizing among the PETA, Greenpeace, 10:10 and kindred folks.

  73. Dan Zeise says:

    “All sponsors of the 10:10 Organization such as Eaga, Kyocera, O2, Sony, The Ashden Trust, Esmee Fairbairn, Wates Foundation, The GD Charitable Trust, The Funding Network, The Guardian and National Magazine Company will be equally liable in Court, at least in the US, for damages should any unfortunate issue occur as a result of this video.”

    Great observation, Dan! Thes groups need to know what those the sponsor are doing with their funds, and I implore all of you to contact them with your comments.

    I was able to contact all in the above list except EA Sports, (Wanted a login, no thanks), and the GD Charitable Trust, which had no “Contact Us” information.

    While I have not heard back from anyone other than robot-mail, I expect that my email was not the only one received today pursuant to “No Pressure”.

    Let’s hope all sponsors bail on “10:10”! Your opinions could help make that a reality.

  74. I see they’ve blocked even minor edits to the wikipedia page now, apparently links helpfully providing youtube videos they haven’t deleted are not allowed .
    (even though they have a link to the deleted one!)
    Must be all hands on deck at 10 10 towers today.

  75. The tone-deafness of the media types in this was easily predictable — these are the same people, after all, who thought Ted Kaczynski’s Manifesto was “right on!”.

    They even go along with Ted’s excuse for killing people — if these “denialists” are going to cause the death of everyone else in a few years, why don’t they deserve to be killed?

    And, as for the “humor” excuse: These are also the same people who see racism and bloody revolution in signs carried at “Tea Party” rallies. Their “humor” only goes one way.

  76. Of course… anybody could have predicted this fiasco.
    But predictions are not among these climate people’s specialties, are they? :-)

  77. My apologies to all for bad html. Hopefully, this will come through better without missing essential text.

    WillR says:
    October 1, 2010 at 10:48 am

    We greatly value your contributions and the tremendous enthusiasm and professionalism you brought to the project.

    Professionalism would have guaranteed a halt to the project.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10:10

    ..and therein you can find a list of people to complain to!

    From the link, Franny Armstrong, founder of 10:10 states:[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film]:

    Doing nothing about climate change is still a fairly common affliction, even in this day and age. What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody’s existence on this planet? Clearly we don’t really think they should be blown up, that’s just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?” […] “We ‘killed’ five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change

    There is more than a little parallel with the extermination of the “undesirables” during the Nazi era when virtual “killing” of five people or “amputation” is justified by the imaginary deaths of 300,000. The Jews and other “undesirables” were also falsely accused of great crimes before they were brutalized. This is how it starts: one small outrageous step at a time. At any point, the process can theoretically be stopped by people with morals and backbone, but each such little step is trivialized as “humor” or it isn’t given the importance it deserves (i.e. the public condemnation), because each such step is deliberately small, yet the goalposts get gradually and inexorably moved (or I should say the out-of-bounds lines) until all sorts of evil is firmly within bounds and justified by unimaginable (and false) accusations of harm being done by the intended targets. Dehumanization is essential to the process. The brutalization during the Nazi era could not have been carried out on the scale that it happened without this essential dehumanizing process. There are (thankfully) generally few people vile enough to do something like this when they consider the victims as fellow humans. The rest of us need to be brainwashed first to consider the victims as non-human or having committed great crimes in order to overcome the natural revulsion that normal human beings feel when doing something like this, either virtually as in this case or in reality as during the Nazi era.

    This is NOT some small thing that is happening and it is NOT due to a few radicals or people who have lost their moral compasses. It needs to be understood as a vital cog in the process of POLITICAL elimination of all dissent. When people with dissenting viewpoints are admitted as equals, both academically and humanly, the political (in this case global) brainwashing using exaggerated models based on manipulated data of questionable quality cannot continue. The public at large will demand better data and more realistic and supportable evidence, before allowing this process to continue.

    So, step 1 is to paint dissenters as unreasonable, hence the use of the label “deniers.” With this film, we see step 2 of the process, which is to dehumanize dissenters or even anyone not willing to join in enthusiastically (witness the end of the short film, where IIRC the actress playing the part of the teacher in the scene where the children get blown up is herself blown up because she thought that lending support for the cause was enough). Step 3 is the passing of regulations mandating everone’s active participation. Step 4 is elevating violations of such regulations to criminal status. Step 5 is increasingly aggressive criminal enforcement of regulations with forcible detention and imprisonment of those that in step one were labeled as “deniers” that didn’t enthusiastically “mend their ways.” There is no end to this process, as it becomes ever more restrictive and punitive. The whole process, once it is set in motion, succumbs to one of the general failings of governments: that is, that there is no good idea that will not be taken to its most costly and punitive extreme.

  78. >>>Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately
    >>>some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.”

    What they mean is that “we found it funny”.

    Unfortunately, with the destruction of education in the UK there has also been a reduction in ability, responsibility and professionalism. There are many people out there, especially within the Civil Service, who think that all work and life is just a wheeze. Nothing is taken seriously.

    This is how these people were thinking. It is normal for them, and they are probably highly confused that the rest of the population did not see it there way.

  79. I think that “sorry” means that they’re sorry they have to take down a video so many sophisticated and urbane intellectuals found funny and pointed because a few moronic provincial neandertals didn’t get the joke.

    Not that they’re sorry they made it or that it was offensive.

  80. By “onward and upward”.. do they mean they want to explode tall buildings next? these people are crazy.. this is like child porn.. [snip] lunatics!! Filth like this should doom any chance of their religion spreading further then it already has.. now take them down with the power of the law.

  81. They came first for the Communists,
    and I didn’t speak up because Communists are evil, dirty bastards.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak up because trade unionist are stupid, dirty bastards.

    Then they came for the remaining Jews,
    since most Jews had already been rounded up for being Communists and trade unionists.

    Then they came for me
    because they were as evil and dirty as the communists after all.

    FIXED!

  82. I just read over the comments on youtube and can’t stop laughing.

    Several comments said they would immediately increase their carbon foot print by 10% and one declared, though it was noon, he had just turned every light on in his home.

    This one was interesting:

    designwrite
    7 hours ago

    More than 40% of the IPCC report was based on non-peer reviewed material — much of it activist propaganda (Greenpeace, WWF, etc). These agenda-driven “scientists” have just recently admitted that their climate models are a crock: they admit the sun has more effect than previously thought, and the oceans have a cooling effect they didn’t consider. None of them have considered the effect of clouds. Real science has no consensus, regardless of what some eco-terrorists say.

  83. If this clip had continued to run on their website, it would have done immense harm to their credibility.
    Self-congratulatory, cold-hearted bullies who fantasize about routinely killing those with whom they disagree, instead of arguing with them.

    This clip will keep circulating around the internet, but who will believe it was made by warmists? Most will think it is satire, made by skeptics.

    It is fascinating to see the slow collapse of the CAGW movement.
    Especially the amazing story of Al Gore merits a Greek tragedy:

    How he was born into a political dynasty and was raised to be president.
    How he turned what should have been an easy, landslide victory for president into a narrow defeat through his arrogance and incompetence.
    How he could not resist soothing his hurt ego with dreams of being the savior of the world by taking a stand on climate science – science being a field of human knowledge where he is spectacularly incapable.
    How he is now in hiding – with every major claim he made in his ‘Inconvenient Truth’ proven to be wrong – and witnessing how everything that is left of his reputation is slowly being crushed.

    Tragic. Funny? No.

  84. The apology is nonsense. The purpose of he film was to go viral and provide a viral charge for 10:10 and its environmental concerns. The film achieved that. Everyone in the world who is connected to the internet now has “10:10,” the “environment,” and “quintessence of gore” on the brain. The film will become an underground favorite that will live for years. The makers of the film have exploited the fact that items can “go viral” and introduced a new level of degradation into our culture. Inevitably, someone will discover how to make video of sex organs “go viral” and then our starlets, so-called, will be drenched in more degradation than they bear now. A new evil has been loosed on the world. The people responsible for this video should be universally shunned; that is, everyone should turn his or her back to them at all times and places.

  85. .

    >>>Why has this not been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions?

    Because it needs to be reported before they can act. I will do this, but it needs a concerted effort. You need to fill in this online form and give details.

    https://online.met.police.uk:443/report.php

    This is classified as a ‘hate crime’. These crimes can include religious beliefs, and since a UK judge has already classified Global Warming as a belief, this is covered by this law.

    Fill in the form, and they are duty bound to make an investigation. It often works. This is what these professional complainers and protesters do all the time, and they get all kinds of projects closed down because of their complaints.

    Well, it is about time they were closed down.

    .

  86. I just asumed they were taking the piss, as in Monty Python’s “How Not To Be Seen” sketch where they blow people up for no real reason. That is humour – I recognize that. I guess it’s only funny when the Muppets blow people up. I find South Park and Borat are offensive as well, along with Hogan’s Heroes because Nazis aren’t funny either.

    (Above is ironic humour, in case you were wondering… and I did find the video amusing too, because it’s too preposterous to be serious.)

  87. An amazing blunder on the part of 10:10. It will take years for the AGW movement to live this down.

    I predict that 10:10 is done as an advocacy group. They know it and that’s what they are really sorry for.

    I’m still dumbfounded that no one in that cozy, crazy little world had the sense to stop the “No Pressure” film.

  88. After watching that interview, I’m reminded of a cartoon featuring the penguins of Madagascar. In one of the segments all that the Skipper wants to do is travel back in time so he can slap a hippie. Methinks that he would not have to travel too far back in time to achieve his goal.

  89. I cannot believe the arrogance of this:

    “Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.”

    So, many people found the murder of human beings extremely funny did they and only some did not?
    I wonder just who found it funny and whether they are CAGW believers, I can think of nothing funny in the planned murder of dissidents including children and the ugliest part was the smiling believers looking on as though it were a normal occurrence. I know our society has become infected with the virus of sick casual violence but this is perhaps the sickest thing I have seen outside an al qaeda murder video.
    This is not about getting a message across with humour, this is about sick hatred and the black depths it can take a soul to.

  90. Make no mistake – while this is a vile attempt at getting attention, it is really all about fund raising and getting their fair share of the climate ca$h …

  91. Ok, I have made a report to the police using the online form (above). My crime report number is CR02-00077692.

    Perhaps a few others can to the same, to generate a degree of pressure.

  92. By the way. You don’t need to live in London to use this police complaint form (above), you only need to have been in London when you looked at the video. That then becomes the place of the crime. And I am sure many of you were in London today.

    Cheers,

  93. “50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras”

    I’d be very interested to know just how many of these actually reduce their emissions by 10% a year, not just put their hands up.

  94. I agree with those who think that people are getting a little worked up over this but I can understand it, it was offensive.

    It was aimed at a UK audience (despite the naivety of thinking it would stay there) and we do have a history of very lax rules about violence on TV, even before the 9 o’clock watershed. It is also in keeping with a brand of sick humour that has begun to pervade British comedy. This is not an excuse, just an explanation.

    A common call by programme makers is ‘we’re pushing the boundaries’, which is code for ‘good stuff is hard work so we’ve just gone all out to shock instead’. It’s a pity the 10:10 crew hadn’t learnt from Jonathon Ross and Russell Brand that we’ve long since reached the limits of taste and decency and gone too far.

    The 10:10 lot tried to use shock tactics to attract adult interest. It succeeded, they’re shocked but they’re not joining the cheering section. They tried to attract youth interest by using violent humour and maybe it will work. However, violent little savages will react one of two ways, they’ll either laugh and go about their extravagant CO2 lifestyles or maybe a very few will see it as a call to act out their sick fantasies. I mean, who could be driven to terrorism by Al Gore’s boring, self-indulgent movie? Yet it happened.

    What on Earth were the 10:10 people trying to achieve? At this point, I’m not sure even they can remember.

    All that said, it’s time to chill a bit and accept that they’ve done more harm to their cause than they ever could have done to us.

  95. couple more comments from youtube:

    TheTimeSignature
    1 hour ago
    This video just shows the illogical thinking behind the stop-climate-change campaign. They actually thought that a video where they murder people who disagree, was a good way to win them over!

    There is no evidence for man-made climate change, and even if it did exist, using 10% less energy wouldn’t stop it. The argument of the 10:10 campaign is complete nonsense.

    You think carbon dioxide causes climate change? Well, just remember that the people who told you that also made this video!

    DrDave953
    21 hours ago
    @dancedissadent2 “Which part of atmospheric radiative transfer physics is wrong?”

    I would say probably the bit that disregards little things like those little understood clouds, convection, humidity as regards the measurement of Earth energy, you know, just minor stuff!

    Dave.

    DrDave953
    19 hours ago
    @Benylor Try telling the 2M+ people that die of AIDS in Africa that climate change is a threat,

    Or the 1M+ that die of malaria, or the millions that die because they don’t have potable water or electricity or because of despotic regimes and countless other causes.

    Tell them that a fictional 300,000 are dying of climate change!

    Dave.

    rfxtuber
    3 hours ago 26
    @mysticmegthepeg : Let’s look at the numbers to see what a 10% global reduction in man made CO2 would do.

    Man is responsible for 3% of annual atmospheric CO2 emissions. If we reduced man’s 3% contribution by one tenth, that would reduce the total annual global emissions of CO2 by only 0.3%. The effect on the Earth’ radiative balance would be much less than that, less than 0.01%.In other words, a 10% reduction in human emissions would have essentially zero impact on the climate.

  96. I am sorry but anyone who found that vile ‘comedy’ extremely funny must be suffering from some kind of mental illness where the normal human emotions of empathy and compassion are stunted or missing.

  97. It’s the old “cheating spouse” analogy.

    They’re not sorry they made the video, they’re sorry they got called on it.

  98. I was outraged at seeing Tottenham Hotspurs Football Club involved in this abomination and wrote to complain:

    Dear Sir,

    My young son has just watched the 10:10 Campaign ‘No Pressure’ video that features non-believers in AGW being blown-up. Since it featured his favourite player, Peter Crouch, and was obviously made with the full support and backing of a reputable football club, I saw no reason to prevent him. I was absolutely aghast at the content, while my son was upset, particularly at the casual assassination of school-children at the hands of a teacher.

    Are you people insane? What on earth has possessed you to be a party to this vile advert? The theory of AGW is by no means universally accepted, yet you appear to believe that it is acceptable to dehumanise those who don’t agree with your views and eliminate them. Tottenham Hotspur famously has deep ties to the Jewish community, perhaps you have forgotten the lessons of the Holocaust?

    I received a creditably swift reply:

    Thank you for your email and we fully understand your reaction to this film.
    The Club has been a supporter of 10:10 since its inception and the organisation has been instrumental in debating the issues surrounding climate change.
    We took part in the film in good faith. We appreciate that this film may offend some and that others will see it as a typical Richard Curtis tongue-in-cheek approach to raising awareness.We shall pass you response to 10:10.
    Kind regards,

    I replied:

    “Thank you for your swift reply to my e-mail, and I appreciate your taking my concerns seriously. It appears that I was not the only one to have found this despicable advertisement beyond the pale – it seems that a spontaneous eruption of revulsion around the world has had the effect of convincing 10:10 to remove this ‘tongue-in-cheek’ advocacy for a Final Solution for ‘Climate Deniers’ from their web-site and make a mealy-mouthed apology.

    I find your claim that 10:10 is an ‘organisation which has been instrumental in debating the issues surrounding climate change’ somewhat hard to swallow – in that it must be a rather one-sided debate which decides which side it is on and threatens annihilation to those who don’t offer fervent, whole-hearted support.

    Tottenham Hotspur Football Club is generally well-regarded within the footballing world, managing to avoid so many of the distasteful aspects of the game that other clubs so often fall prey to. You would do well to realise that ‘guilt-by-association’ can be as damaging as perpetrating the offence itself. Whoever signed your club up to this mis-guided organisation has made an immense mis-calculation.”

    – It was important to me to put my concerns on record. There seems to me to be a general feeling among the high and mighty in the world, the lofty intellectuals and elites, that a pro-AGW stance is an all-round winner, that no one loses in the great self-hate fest that is the its-all-our-fault-we’re-killing-the-planet mindset, so everyone jumps on-board, even a North London football club that should know better…

  99. I’ve just watched the video (I couldn’t do so from work). I’m amazed at the implication of this video and I cannot find this video anything other than a call to murder anyone who doubts AGW. I must have missed the humour completely – or maybe Richard Curtis has finally lost his.

    A spectacular own goal from the climate alarmists that should mark the final deceleration of the global warming movement.

  100. The quote “The film was intended for a British audience, and has had a variety of responses, mostly positive, but not from a global perspective.” is clearly meant to suggest that this was something that would amuse the British, but that other nations could not be expected to see the joke.
    May I, as a Briton, just say that this film is simply repulsive in every way. Nothing about it is in any way amusing. This quote is just another feeble attempt at self-justification, clearly trying to imply that their critics are few and humourless.
    Many have felt in the past that the term ‘eco-fascist’, used to describe the more extreme environmentalists, was over the top. No longer.

  101. The video is scary –

    JEM says:
    October 1, 2010 at 11:44 am
    The video is funny. I’m not too put off by the gore (no pun intended.)

    But to get to the interpretation they want, you have to get past the more obvious self-parodic interpretation that’d be embraced by anyone not already Of The Faith – the warmist contingent is not QUITE ready to go to the explosive phase, but they’ll happily use any means short of that.

    I’m not sure they aren’t ready to go to the explosive phase – that’s what scary. I don’t think this should be taken too lightly.

  102. To put their campaign into perspective, in a country of 62 million they’ve attracted less than 100,000 people in the year they’ve been operating. One of those people calls themself Gergely Wootsch which is presumably the sound of their plans going down the toilet.

  103. OK, it is not real murder. But it nicely illustrates how one manufactures consensus; just exclude all those who think differently.

    And that can, and does, get practiced.

  104. Part of the message has been changed to:

    As a result of these concerns we’ve taken it off our website. We won’t be making any attempt to censor or remove other versions currently in circulation on the internet.

  105. Re: The Gray Monk

    Why has this not been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Or to the appropriate Advertising Authority? This same group would be quick enough to do it if they were on the receiving end of this trash!

    I thought about doing that, but then thought it’d be counterproductive. Much better to ask 10:10’s supporters, corporate or government if they believe summary execution of non-believers is an appropriate response to global warming. 10:10 seem to have realised this has backfired and trying to bury the bad news, but they wanted it viral, it’s gone viral. The PR people supporting 10:10 are going to have an interesting time supporting a ‘believe us or die’ campaign.

  106. Some commenters are saying, as the 10:10 team says, that it is just a joke, maybe a bad/distasteful joke, but just a joke.

    I do not think it is just a joke, it is a strategic move in their power game. If it is a joke then it is by the 10:10 organization. The people who do not think like the 10:10 organization are being laughed at. OK, I am grown up.

    I will be more active about them now. And I will spread the word more than before. I have something revolting to use, it is their own PR.

    John

  107. I’ve summarized a snippet that fits in youtube comments. Feel free to share it.

    Actual Science Data Correlations (against temp):

    0.44 CO2 levels.

    0.85 Pacific PDO + Atlantic AMO Ocean.

    0.88 Linear+Cyclic Null Hypothesis.

    0.96 Pacific PDO + Atlantic AMO Ocean + Solar Activity.

    Conclusions:

    1) While CO2 has increased in the last 50 years the 130 yr temp tend remains unchanged based upon observational data.

    2) Natural causes of PDO+AMO+Solar clearly shown.

    3) Based upon observed data Nature falsifies alarmist AGW hypothesis.

    Thus alarmism over 0.44 not rational.

  108. There was another ‘exploding body’ ad some years ago. An Arab suicide bomber drives and parks outside a busy cafe. He detonates himself. The car contains the blast.

    Maybe the ad was offensive to Arabs. But at least, to a Western audience, you could read the ad as being about how the car saved lives.

    In this ad by 10:10, we are supposed to believe that eliminating a minority view will save the planet. What is reprehensible about it, isn’t whether it is done in a funny way or a serious way, fantasy or reality — the problem is that they are promoting an irrational view.

    A small sturdy car that saves lives; that makes sense. A schoolteacher instructing little children in a serious falsehood; that is always scary.

    The schoolteacher’s lesson was the scariest part.

  109. Andrew W says: “You people seem to have missed this bit: “we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

    Oh, no we haven’t, Andrew. We saw it and deemed it inadequate. I want them to bloody well apologize for thinking blowing up those who don’t agree with them is funny and trying to force that mind-set on other people.

  110. As Mao said, we need to let a thousand flowers bloom.

    The greenies are now comfortable enough to admit what they REALLY believe.

    Let everyone understand both the self-ordained elitism and self-hatred of their species that fuels these sick people.

  111. Have been busy writing to my UK representatives at both national and EU level, soberly registering my disquiet and asking that similar material be withdrawn from UK schools. Have also requested that all taxpayer funding to such organisations be withheld pending a full government enquiry.

    I hope other British readers of WUWT will be doing the same.

    Let’s face it, if 21 complaints is enough to set the dogs of officialdom on the Thompson family in Australia, what might a few thousand do?

    I’m not expecting an overwhelmingly positive response, but if you don’t ask…………..

  112. The many atrocities the world has known probably found enough like-thinking people to find it funny. Remember Goonpeace’s “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. You be few and we be many.” (probably not an exact quote from the Greenpeace blog). They too had to remove it from their site and rationalize out a reluctant apology. Remember the greenies organized attack on the Thompsons in Oz who publically expressed their doubts about GHG and the supposed disasterous effects. Remember essentially only those sceptical of CAGW contributed money to provide shelter and food for the Thompson children. As a group, these appear not to be very nice people and they want to rule the world – no wonder the zeal for CO2 armageddon has been declining since climategate – and that only pointed up the dishonesty and dirty tricks – not the present ugly mean and violent side.

  113. I have saved and uploaded this sick video to youtube:

    We must not let them hide from this admission of their sick goals!

  114. I wonder if these people realise that the best thing leaders can do is actually lead. If they are willing to reduce their “carbon” footprint to 10% less than my current level, I am quite willing to change my “carbon” footprint to 10% less than their current level, except, I very much doubt that I could afford such a massive increase in energy use.

    Hypocrites one and all.

  115. An aside on what some people think is “funny.” I’ve noticed that, for many years now, what passes as “funny” to some people is more and more outrageous compared to years gone by. What was revolting then is considered funny today (by some).

    My own view is that revolting is always revolting. The 10:10 video is beyond revolting, this is disgusting.

    Plus, it is extremely revealing that the 10:10 group felt it necessary to stoop to such lows to focus attention on their topic, their cause. Whatever happened to the sit-in?

  116. At least this debacle provides a teachable moment.

    I wonder if 10:10 realized the symbol of modern greens their fictional schoolteacher was offering: a superficial appearance of sweet, benign goodheartedness, and then the mask slips and reveals a fascist psychopath, coldly indifferent to human suffering and prepared to use violence to enforce obedience and conformity.

    I had trouble convincing a journalist friend that this was real. He was sure it must be an anti-government group trying to discredit environmentalists. Only when he spent time reading the 10:10 website did he agree it must actually be genuine.

  117. The 10:10 “No Pressure” video is not similar to but identical with the broadcast of a freshman Rutgers student’s sex act by his room mates. Both resulted in suicide. One a human being and another a movement. The ability to justify despicable behavior goes back to a recent study which demonstrated that people who believed themselves to possess the higher moral ground, were more apt to commit the most despicable acts against others. A kind of moral currency: if I do “x” amount of “good”, then I am entitled to do “y” amount of harm. The 10:10 video reflects, and the apology reflects, individuals who believe they possess the moral high ground; and don’t of course.

  118. Jimash says: “…Pull all corporate sponsorship. Do not support child abuse.”

    Forcing a child to watch this hideous piece of propaganda would be child abuse. Forcing a child to take part in the filming was child abuse. Shouldn’t these people be taken to court to answer for the psychological damage they’ve done to the young actors who participated in what amounts to a snuff flick?

    10:10 = 0:0

  119. Unfortunately for 1010 they are running a schools challenge to cut carbon. I wonder if it will involve murdering children who will not participate. Even worse the information is provided by a Marni Craze. It just gets better.

  120. I’d like to make a couple of points I think a lot of people are missing:

    #1 – This video, though both horrid in its stuipd/sick humor, is nothing but a publicity stunt. Everyone seems to be missing that point. Whoever heard of 10:10 before? No one until today, right? This is very comparable to the idiot pastor in New Jersey who decided he’d like to burn a bunch of Qu’rans… any one remember him? I bet you do. Publicity stunt 100%. Why did he become so popular? Because people protested him. They hated him. They STILL TALK ABOUT HIM, but why? He had a dozen followers, how many does he have now? So, my feeling is we (the skeptic community) need to simply drop this stupid ball. We are not a politically motivated organization funded by vast amounts of government and private funds as many of our “Green” cohorts are…. we are skeptics, a disambigous group of people who agree the AGW hypothesis is severly corrput and inaccurate. Do not stoop to the level of “hating” the AGW proponents – they hate us, don’t you doubt it, but that’s because they “BELEIVE” in the RELIGION of AGW. So, I beg you, the skeptic community, to not BELEIVE in this and give the sons-of-female-dogs who made this credit and publicity through your rants and ravings of the evil of this stupid viral video.

    #2 – Everyone commenting on this blog site and others of similar ilk seem to be missing a fundemental point: Skeptics should WANT the Greenies to post things like this… it brings them one step closer to really coming out of the “terrorist closet”. They are becoming a full blow religion full of extremists and activists… and how does the normal every day person feel about religious extremists? Hmm? They don’t like them… they declare them terrorists and hunt them down and destroy them. However, I do not threaten anyone here… I’m just commenting. If the Greenies start this sort of campaign, they WILL shoot themselves in the foot and ruin their own cause (its already happening… the media are starting to pick this up, and the media love driving contriversy down our throats and this they will drive deep, I think). So, support videos like this! Don’t overwhelm their websites or accuse them of crimes, becuase you don’t need to. Normal everyday god-fearing human beings know better than to support a terrorist cause, and with the help of Greenies like this, they will go the way of dinosaur and becoming extinct.

    By the way, I do enjoy your site Mr. Watts. Keep up the good work!

  121. Ross McKitrick (October 1, 2010 at 2:57 pm)

    Very glad to read your link (I hope you don’t mind my quoting here)

    “The really appalling thing is the celebration of violence and intimidation to enforce total conformity with one particular view of the environment.” and
    “The victims in this film were the ones who thought for themselves and spoke their minds.”
    – that is exactly what bothered me so much also.

  122. jorgekafkazar says:
    October 1, 2010 at 2:31 pm
    “I want them to bloody well apologize for thinking blowing up those who don’t agree with them is funny and trying to force that mind-set on other people.”

    I want them, all of them including parents of child actors, to turn themselves into the police as child molestors harboring homicidal wishes toward all of mankind.

  123. The Succucite says:
    October 1, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    “This is very comparable to the idiot pastor in New Jersey who decided he’d like to burn a bunch of Qu’rans… any one remember him? I bet you do.”

    Actually, just to show how ineffective idiot publicity stunts are, the idiot pastor was in Florida. The idiot in New Jersey was a transit worker.

    Appropriately, the idiot transit worker lost his job and the idiot pastor may lose his flock.

    We’ll have to wait and see what the idiots at 10:10 will lose.

  124. Hey look, it was just supposed to be “funny” ha ha ha, but stupid things are not funny. Especially when you show it very very graphically.

    Some things you just can’t put online, like videotaping people have sex without consent, showing graphic explosions of children, people’s exploded eyeballs rolling down glass while you flash your propaganda message. There need to be limits.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/29/nj-student-secretly-taped-having-sex-kills/

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/30/eveningnews/main6916119.shtml?tag=stack

  125. The Succucite

    I note your point, but in this instance, the concept that there is no such thing as bad publicity has been disproven. I hope that parodies of this video run and run. For Franny to claim that 300,000 people a year are dying from global warming is simply stupid.

    Millions die every year due to poverty, preventable diseases, lack of clean water etc. If the money spent by the EcoFascist branch of the AGW debate, had been spent more appropriately, lives would have been saved. 10:10, with all their tax payers funding, have achieved nothing, apart from slitting their own throat (they like bloody analogies) and destroying their own cause. A masterful bit of PR.

    Even their “apology” is nothing more than Anthony’s much mentioned “move along, nothing to see here”. Check it out, “onwards and upwards, and we have tried to remove the video so there is nothing to see.”

    For those not aware, in the UK, behaviour likely to cause emotional upset to children, is sufficient to get Social Services to take away your children for forced adoption. For those in the UK willing to write to the police, MP’s etc regarding this, from the incitement angle, please bear this in mind.

    For those of you that do not believe me, please check “Christopher Booker” on Anthony’s side bar.

  126. I sent the following message to kyoceramita: [kyoceramita@kyoceramita.co.uk]

    “I understand kyoceramita is a sponsor of the 10:10 campaign who produced the video showing people being blown up for not agreeing with them. This video is pure fascist eco-terrorism, tasteless, evil, and disgusting. The children who took part in this video were subjected to psychological abuse by being allowed to participate. Now, every time I see kyoceramita, I’ll see a mental image of children and adults being blown to bits, their entrails being splattered over all the bystanders.”

  127. But just for the record – they might delete the wikipedia article to disappear its history – let’s hear it again – i posted it on notrickszone a few minutes ago:
    “Doing nothing about climate change is still a fairly common affliction, even in this day and age. What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody’s existence on this planet? Clearly we don’t really think they should be blown up, that’s just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start? […] We ‘killed’ five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change.

    “”Franny Armstrong, founder of 10:10[42]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10:10

    So now we also have a fine Winston Smith moment in the wikipedia… Great. This gets better by the minute.

  128. In following the twists and turns of the global warming debate I have frequently been gobsmacked by the tactics used to promote restrictions on CO2 production. The Greenpeace call for violence against sceptics, also withdrawn in a storm of protest, was over the top. But over the top doesn’t begin to describe this video. It is the culmination of a debate which I attempt to summarize as follows:

    Moderator; Welcome to the 25th annual global warming debate. The score now stands at 17 wins for the warmists, and 8 for the sceptics, though I must note that the sceptics have won the last 5 in succession. As they won the last round, first comment goes to the warmist side.

    Warmist; CO2 emissions are causing the earth to warm up. The physics of this process are well known, and the result is that the planet’s temperature will continue to accelerate upwards, causing a catastrophe unless we act immediately to curb emissions.

    Skeptic; The well known physics of CO2 includes the fact that CO2 is logarithmic, and so subject to the law of diminishing returns. The amount of CO2 required to cause catastrophic warming is many times what we are capable of producing.

    Warmist; But the effects of CO2 are tripled or worse by positive feedback from water vapour.

    Skeptic; If that were true, the earth would have experienced catastrophic warming multiple times already, and it hasn’t. You are ignoring the negative feedbacks while extrapolating positive feedbacks for which there is no evidence.

    Warmist; The evidence of catastrophic change is already upon us, polar bears for example are going extinct.

    Skeptic; The polar bear population has tripled in the last decade…

    Warmist; Just because their population is increasing doesn’t mean they’re not going extinct. And warming has already caused increases in sea level that are swamping island atolls.

    Skeptic; Island atolls float. The only reason they are being swamped is the amount of buildings being constructed on top of them.

    Warmist; Sea level rise will only get worse as the warming accelerates, which it is. Consider the historical temperature record in this graph…

    Skeptic; That graph? The one based on 7 trees from Siberia with 50% of the weighting from just one of them? I have 51 reconstructions from around the world, each based on dozens of samples or more, that show a completely different picture.

    Warmist; Those 51 reconstructions were debunked by this reconstruction which appeared on the front cover of the prestigious IPCC AR4 report.

    Skeptic; Isn’t that the one where the researchers replaced part of the reconstruction with thermometer readings instead of tree ring data because the tree rings diverged from the theory? How is it that you can dismiss 60 years of tree ring data as being faulty while claiming that the other 1000 years are accurate?

    Warmist; You clearly don’t understand science. The temperature record from GISS clearly shows the earth has never been warmer.

    Skeptic; Can we see the raw data that went into that temperature record along with how the values were adjusted and the final results arrived at?

    Warmist; No.

    Skeptic; Why not? What have you to hide?

    Warmist; As I said before, you clearly don’t understand science so there is no point showing it to you.

    Skeptic; Well we departed from actual scientific discussion when you brought up polar bears extinction…

    Warmist; Exactly my point. Studies indicate that people with skeptic viewpoints are lacking in education, are intellectually deficient, or are psychopaths who care little about humanity, so you keep dismissing the graphs and charts on flimsy excuses.

    Skeptic; Flimsy excuses? You are proposing that we constrain the world economy, endanger the food supply, and sink the global standard of living to levels that will most certainly result in the death of millions based on data you won’t show me, anecdotal stories about polar bears that upon investigation are completely false, and reports that I dismiss because they are based on ridiculous notions like the worldwide temperature being represented by a single tree in Siberia, and you accuse me of flimsy excuses?

    Warmist; Precisely. You are psychologically incapable of evaluating the science objectively due to your defective upbringing and education. There may even be a genetic component to your psychosis, though evidence that skeptic views are increasing amongst the population suggests that these traits are more wide spread than previously thought. In order to safe guard humanity, it may be necessary to take steps to control sceptics in order to prevent them from destroying the rest of us.

    Skeptic; Uhm… that sounds like a threat.

    Warmist; Being defective in terms of upbringing and intelligence, it is not a surprise that you perceive a threat where none was made.

    Skeptic; Fine. Then explain to me what you meant.

    Warmist; Well, we’ve invented this little grey box with a red button on top (shows box), and when we press the button (presses button)

    Skeptic; (explodes, spattering blood and gore across the stage)

    Moderator; Oh my!

    Warmist; Having presented a robust scientific explanation of the effects of CO2, backed up by robust studies demonstrating the correlation with accelerating temperatures which will have catastrophic effects on humanity according to a myriad of robust scientific models, which sceptics are psychologically incapable of understanding, and have failed to rebut in this debate, the science is settled, and culling of the human population by those of us who do understand is required in order to save us from ourselves.

    Moderator; But…

    Warmist; (brandishes little box with button)

    Moderator; (hastily) I declare the debate resolved in favour of the warmists. This is a victory for science.

    Warmist; (brandishes little box)

    Moderator; (gulps) I meant a ROBUST victory for science. There is no further need for debate.

    ———————
    Tongue in cheek though this may be, it is what the debate has descended to. The warmists rely increasingly on imagery and rhetoric as the holes in their science grow ever larger. Imagery and rhetoric now seeming to have failed as well, they increasingly turn to denigration of their opponent’s intelligence, veiled threats as we saw from Greenpeace, and overt threats in the form of this video from 10:10. Withdrawn in a storm of protest or not, apologies or not, it is representative of their innermost beliefs which have nothing to do with facts or science, only a misguided belief system in which they have wrapped themselves in the cloak of morality, secure in the superiority of their position, and unable to comprehend that their cloak is woven of the same threads of prejudice and arrogance worn by the worst of those who inflected the darkest of inhumanities upon the world in the name of saving it.

  129. … makes you wonder: If blowing up people and threatening amputations is SOOO funny why do they run around frantically now and make it all disappear? ….

  130. “Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.”
    ===============
    Ummmm……….. you haven’t offended anybody, you have offended everybody.

  131. Sent to Sony, who have done a good job of hiding contact eddresses on their site. I sent this message to “sukleadsplus@eu.sony.com” since I couldn’t find any others.

    “Sony is listed as a sponsor of the 10:10 campaign, the activists who made a video showing people being blown up for not agreeing with them. Although they claim the video was intended to be funny, it is, instead nothing other than eco-terrorism, a tasteless, disgusting, evil bit of propaganda. Every time I see “Sony” from now on, I’ll think of children and adults who dared to oppose eco-fascism being blown up and splattered over the bystanders.”

    http://www.break.com/usercontent/2010/10/1/crazy-offensive-10-10-global-warming-video-1925116

    “sukleadsplus@eu.sony.com”

  132. I hear they’re fast at work on a new commercial. This time they just waterboard the children who don’t agree with the 10:10 project instead of blowing them up. It’s actually much funnier, according to the “many people” who thought the original was funny.

  133. “We’d like to thank the 50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free. We greatly value your contributions and the tremendous enthusiasm and professionalism you brought to the project.”

    Oh look what you’ve done Anthony. The poor actors and film professionals had their work censored. I hope you feel guilty.
    ;-)

  134. 10:10 = sad sorry unemployed losers (and a few people that make a living off payer dime)

    Sad sorry unemployed losers (and a few people that make a living off payer dime) = useful idiots

  135. Since when is this ‘not being talked about in the media’? Are you drunk?

    The video was deplorable. Mayhaps even criminal. “Don’t think like us? We’ll blow you and your kids to bits.”

    Lemme school you just a bit – as an ad-woman of 20+ years. You don’t get anyone to wrap their arms around you with threats – implied or real. And, since the climate change thing is just a mechanism of extracting more taxes (and no real solution to anything), stuff like this advert is positively despicable.

    Thanks, wattsup, for this commentary. I hope these jerks have been taken down a notch (or 20).

  136. It is now 15 minutes past midnight here in the UK and I have spent the last 6 hours or so scanning as many blogs as well as MSM sites as I could reasonably access in that time.
    Not even the Climategate revelations received as much attention. The condemnation of the “exploding” video is universal!
    10:10 didn’t shoot themselves in the foot with this video, they shot themselves squarely in the face!

  137. An apology is of no worth at all if it is shrouded in qualifications.

    It is of value if it is honest full and unqualified. This is not it i simple B.S.

    BTW my brother and I from small boys followed and supported Spurs (for our sins), and as a young father, I took my own lads to White Hart Lane. Never again!

    From now on all Spurs players will arrive at the ground on the bus, and leave their Mercs, Beamers and Jags at home.

  138. davidmhoffer

    Like it!

    Can you put that script (modified) with dialogue on to a parody of the 10:10 video and post it?

  139. That’s what happens when you hire kids straight out of design school. They come up with these whacky ideas but don’t have the experience to know they should listen to that voice in the back of the head that whispers, ‘you know, this really isn’t so smart”.

  140. Gerard O’Brien said @ October 1, 2010 at 1:45 pm
    I was outraged at seeing Tottenham Hotspurs Football Club involved in this abomination and wrote to complain

    I did likewise, as a life-long fan of Spurs. You can be sure I filled their e-orifice
    with complaint.

    To apply the phrase Beyond the Pale insults the Irish with respect to this vile sputum.

  141. Holdren the disruption man is happy now, an explosive door B to limit population growth. Hansen has new form of civil disobedience. Certainly Lisa Jackson and Obama need to be kept from the no pressure button (oops.. Obama has the whole button in his hand).

  142. [ We ‘killed’ five people to make No Pressure ] – Franny Armstrong, founder of 10:10

    Hmm. I counted at least 7 (seven), not counting that the number of explosions was even bigger. Looks like another nice display of dishonesty.

    The whole thing smells really fishy. It is not like a bad joke slips in a momentary mental blackout, oops!. They used 90 people, and probably several weeks for filming. I can’t believe they can be so stupid not to see the devastating effect on Green movement. It is illness.

  143. The 10;10 woman and the future leader of the British Labour Party, Ed Milliband in ‘conversation’ before the Copenhagen fiasco.

  144. Cynical Bastard says:
    October 1, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    “”Can it be taken as a threat? In legal sense, I mean? With prosecution and what follows?”

    I think, on the precautionary principal, these people should be locked up for life.

  145. and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

    You did not offend. You deeply offended .

  146. At 10:10 we’re all about trying new and creative ways

    Oh……

    How creative.

    SARCASM STILL ON, cont.

  147. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark

    You brilliant global warming people couldn’t tell how absolutely offensive it was? Yes, you are so brilliant. Thank you for saving the world with your nimble intellectual acrobatics. Truly impressive. Truly.

    What is your encore?

  148. They missed the mark. That’s it? Showing children being killed, blown up, bloody entrails? Because they disagreed? Yeah, they missed the mark alright. This is the extent of their apology?

  149. @Mike Borgelt

    ** Maybe we should have waited a little longer before the outrage.

    “never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake” **

    No, Mike. We harried them into compounding their error with their lame and insincere apology.

  150. I’m sure that the makers of this little film are very surprised by the response to it. In their circle of friends and acquaintances, they may have rarely come across someone who actually disagreed with their beliefs and it was certainly not someone of their social standing if they did. I’m going to guess that their ratio of two skeptics in a classroom is about what they thought the real world was like. If less than 10% of people complained about the film, they may have felt the other 90% would be there to shout the minority down and tell them how they had no sense of humor. If the makers of the mini-movie don’t read comments, their statement that “(m)any people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t” may well reflect what they’ve heard from friends and colleagues.

    I don’t know about the Hollywood elite, but I have had some experience with liberal elites in the Washington DC suburbs of northern Virginia. I’ve met very wealthy people who seem to have never encountered a non-believer in CAGW before. They assume I have no idea what I’m talking about and must be a follower of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. When I asked how one group felt about the revelations of Climategate, not one of them had heard of it. I wonder if they’ll hear of this.

  151. I stand corrected John M. Thank you. And I think you are right, Mr. Golf Charley. This is spreading faster and faster… perhaps its good to feed the fire in this case.

  152. “In their circle of friends and acquaintances, they may have rarely come across someone who actually disagreed with their beliefs”
    ElizabethA nailed it…wtg

  153. Golf Charley says:
    October 1, 2010 at 4:27 pm
    davidmhoffer
    Like it!
    Can you put that script (modified) with dialogue on to a parody of the 10:10 video and post it?>>

    Dialogue I can write. Editing video beyond my skill set. If someone else wants to do that part, they are free to use what I wrote as is, or I am happy to rewrite as needed. Its that or pour new concrete pad this weekend, and concrete is heavy. On the other hand, there’s a lot of CO2 as a result of pouring concrete, which would offend the folks at 10:10. By my calculations, I would need to pour a concrete pad that covered all of North America to generate enough CO2 to offend them as much as just the first segment of their video offended me.

  154. As Homer Simpson once said “It’s funny because it’s true”. Yesterday the greenies revealed their true nature and I am laughing. Only I am not laughing with them.

    I am laughing at them.

  155. I just want to know what kind of drugs these gore-oids are taking or are they drinking effluent from a water treatment plant. Nothing and I mean nothing in climate science indicates climate change is drastic or an imminent threat. I really think these people are potentially dangerous as the struggle between socialism and Democracy comes to a peek. They are disconnected from reality. This is not about a legitimate scientific debate, but about the eploitation of science or pseudo-science to advance a political agenda.

  156. So sorry.

    Today we put up an incredibly stupid and representative of 10:10 and climate change called ‘No Pressure’.

    With climate change alarmists becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly approached by rational thought, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people speechless with anger and mortification. We were therefore more than a little surprised when Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis – writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write an incomprehensibly stupid vignette for the 10:10 campaign. A few psychopaths we test marketed found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately human beings didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody with more sensibility than a scorpion.

  157. Is this part of Holdren’s strategy to “de-develop” the US? [snip] Believe it or not, I used to give monthly credit-card donations to WWF and Greenpeace. I’m sick of all this bull[snip], it has nothing to do with saving the environment.

  158. >>> What will be their encore?

    Oh, how about some Muslims blowing up Jews. Now surely something like that can only be funny, and never considered offensive. (sarc off )

    These people have no brains.

    And as I said before, you can report this to the UK police under their hate-crimes unit. It is a simple online form. Back-search this thread for it.

    .

  159. “The Brits would get it”…eh?! Which British people were they referring to, I wonder? Not this one, I can tell you. I think it is very deeply offensive. I hope it thoroughly backfires on the Warmists. I think they must have deep psychological problems if they thought it clever or funny.

  160. ‘I gotta define this generation’, by Frannie Armstrong via RHG’s link @ 5:29 PM yesterday. That and her next sentence provide the diagnosis. She has delusions of grandeur.
    ==================

  161. Remember, “cooler heads will prevail”, a statement that’s just too funny and ironic! But this is the most important time to just stick to facts and truths and don’t let this emotionally draw you into ad hom. This just gives the AGW cult members ability to deflect from facing data science supported truths and their agreeing with death threat videos of non believers.

    Just be calm and collected, flood them with real data, grab some popcorn and watch them hang themselves!
    Cowards/liars always have big mouths and utter death threats, to me ……”It’s game on “, I smell a revolution brewing.

  162. ElizabethA says:
    October 1, 2010 at 7:46 pm
    “[…]Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. When I asked how one group felt about the revelations of Climategate, not one of them had heard of it. I wonder if they’ll hear of this.”

    Nearly all my colleagues are warmists. None of them ever heard about or thought about the increase in photosynthetic productivity through increased CO2 until i told them. They did know, though, that the polar caps are melting. They were under the impression that this is a continuus process at both poles.

    In other words, terribly uninformed.

  163. “Jason says:
    October 2, 2010 at 8:47 am”

    Clearly you are OK with the abuse of children? Children in the UK are ALREADY “offing” themselves on this garbage!

  164. I have spent several hours reading online about this topic and here as on most sites someone suggests spoofing/dubbing or altering the video. I think this would be a bad idea as claims of tampering and other changes would “muddy the water”. This thing needs to be “sold as seen” and not changed whatsoever.

  165. Does anyone really believe they pulled this movie because ‘a few were offended’? That was their precise intention – to offend those few non believers, while they remain secure sheltering behind the many, who will ‘be laughing’.

    How tragic. It turned out that it wasn’t the many who were laughing, but the few. It wasn’t the few who were offended but the many. That is why they pulled it. No other reason. I can now join those laughing. Laughing at the shock and surprise they must now be feeling.

  166. Jason says:
    October 2, 2010 at 8:47 am

    “Oh right, it’s just politicized faux moral outrage. Classy as ever watts up crowd, classy as ever…”

    Jason,

    I described the gist of the matter to my two sons and daughter in law who are in their 20s. They assumed my outrage and even fear was unjustified.

    I then showed them the video and their shock and fear was neither faux nor politicised.

    What you fail to realise is that few of us trust the State to be fair and reasonable any more. The past 10 years of leftism in the UK and no doubt elsewhere have created a plethora of legal and social traps for the honest well meaning citizen many of which could result in ruin either personal, financial or both just on the basis of bad luck.

    This sinister aggressive threatening and generally vile piece of work just ratchets up the pressure even more and it can easily be seen as a precursor of worse to come.

    The State has become our enemy despite our limited voting opportunities and there is potentially a nasty slide towards tyranny ahead of us.

    It must be reversed, and soon. Unfortunately the privileged insulated ruling elite have done so well that they just do not see it.

  167. Jason-

    “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not find us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
    Dietrich Bonhoeffer
    He was hung by a meathook by Hitler’s Gestapo and SS.
    Murder of children-real or not is evil…

  168. @ Phil October 1, 2010 at 12:11 pm posted this from the link that WillR had provided October 1, 2010 at 10:48 am:

    There is more than a little parallel with the extermination of the “undesirables” during the Nazi era when virtual “killing” of five people or “amputation” is justified by the imaginary deaths of 300,000. The Jews and other “undesirables” were also falsely accused of great crimes before they were brutalized. This is how it starts: one small outrageous step at a time.

    This is something many, many people ASSUME about Hitlerism, that it snuck up on people little by little.

    But it simply isn’t true at all.

    Up until the moment Hitler took power at the end of January, 1933, he HAD no power. His party was not the majority in the Reichstag, and it never had been. He was NOT the most powerful man in Germany until that moment.

    He did not sneak up, gradually, on the German nation. He was put in place by people who thought he had more balls than the previous guy, Kurt von Schleicher, who only lasted about 2 months. They all thought they could control Hitler.

    It took them less than 3 months to find out otherwise.

    Within 6 WEEKS he had opened the Dachau concentration for undesirable politicals (Communists and Social Democrats mostly, at first) – and yet it was not even the first camp. It was the THIRD camp opened between the beginning of February and the middle of March. That is the most incredible thing about Hitler, was that he was doing all this stuff right from the beginning.

    And here is what Wikipedia has to say about something else:

    Upon taking office Hitler immediately began accumulating power and changing the nature of the Chancellory. After only two months in office the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act which gave the Chancellor full legislative powers for a period of four years – the Chancellor could introduce any law without consulting Parliament.
    Source: http://tiny.cc/pslme

    And how was Hitler able to get the Reichstag to give him that power? He had the Reichstag burned down and blamed it on a Communist, in one of the most blatant false flag operations of all time. And when did it happen? FOUR WEEKS AFTER HE TOOK OFFICE.

    Where is the “gradual erosion”?

    He basically said to every other part of the government, “Now that I have power, I am going to kill anyone who tries to stop me. Anybody willing to test me on that?”

    They got the message: Knuckle under or this will happen to YOU!

    And 17 months after taking office, Hitler eliminated his main rival, Ernst Röhm, the leader of the SA Brown Shirts, on The Night of the Long Knives. He also had Schleicher killed that by the following noon. (Wikipedia:)

    …on 30 June 1934, the Night of the Long Knives occurred, Schleicher was one of the chief victims. While in his house, he was gunned down; hearing the shots, his wife came into the room, whereupon she was also shot.

    There was nothing gradual about the way Hitler “eroded” civility in people one small step at a time. Hitler grabbed power, disappeared people, killed people, framed people, and locked up people right from the beginning.

    The reason people did nothing about him was that they were all afraid of him, after what he did in those first few months.

    People should get this crap out of their heads, that we get monsters because our rights and civility are encroached on gradually. NO. Not historically. And certainly not in Germany in the 1930s. It happens when some wacko like Hitler or Stalin seizes power and starts eliminating other powerful people and eliminating the opposition – BY OUTRAGEOUS USE OF FORCE.

    The assertions in that link in this regard SOUND reasonable, but they simply are not true.

  169. Jason says:
    October 2, 2010 at 8:47 am
    Oh you poor delicate little flowers :( ……………..
    ===================
    Continue to fertilize, watch us grow.

  170. I scrolled somewhat quickly through the comments so far, looking for the one word that most describes the perpetrators of this video. I couldn’t find the word.

    Has everyone forgotten how to spell psychopath?

  171. All that cycling to school will make that Jemima a right fit one when she grows up, though. ; – )

  172. This thread would be funny if it did not sum up what your site and your commentators are all about.

    The video was satire; ill conceived and inappropriate, but nothing more than that. It’s purpose was a noble one.

    You align yourselves with those like Morano who advocate acts of of terrorism against scientists to stop research on climate change.

    Many of your acolytes also have suggested violence against climate researchers and governments that are acting on the certainty of dangerous climate change.

    I would say that yo are being “Holier than thou” except that there is nothing in this world at this time that is more unholy than your conspiracy to destroy civilization through inaction.

    REPLY: “It’s purpose was a noble one.” ???? Yeah sure, whatever. Another rant from person to cowardly to put their own name to their challenge, we get dozens a day. If you believe in yourself and your cause so much, care to put your name to your words?

    There is certainty though. Not one skeptic has ever organized mass disobenidence protests, set fire to buildings (like Earth First), blown up kids in propaganda videos, spiked trees to injure lumberjacks (I have a friend missing a finger, thanks), or strapped explosives to themselves and entered a building demanding a change in TV programming. Then there’s this: Grist Magazine David Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

    Great company you keep there bucko. Skeptics aren’t the problem, regular people who don’t believe aren’t the problem, angry unhinged people pushing an agenda like yourself are. – Anthony

  173. What a pitiful response. There are terrorists in every corner of the world and your attempted deflection doe not “cut it.”

    I don’t use my name because there are a lot of psychopaths out there: quite a few of them take their cues from you.

    However, I would debate you about this matter anytime. You are damned right that I keep good company. It is not the company of paid shills of oil companies. Or of those so called leaders who put votes ahead of the millions of lives that will be lost IN THIS CENTURY ALONE. A consummation that you will be guilty of through your associations.

    I do keep the company of scientists: a number of them are in my family and they are united in one thing other than the reality of dangerous climate change.

    That is their contempt for you.

    REPLY: Heh, yes I know about psychopaths, I have a some that hassle me here daily. OK since you fail on the merits of talking points, let’s get to some hard data. Show me the people who are dying due to “dangerous climate change”. Mind you, weather events don’t count, because as you well know from your scientist friends: “weather is not climate”. – Anthony

  174. Amused. says:
    October 3, 2010 at 8:50 am

    Amused. says:
    October 3, 2010 at 9:43 am

    ———–

    Amused,

    Seriously, I recommend you seek out some of your close friends and step back a minute for some calm discussion. Talk this out with them. I am being sincere.

    Don’t do anything figuratively equivalent to button pushing. Seriously now.

    John

  175. Seriously, John! What do you mean?

    The effects of climate change are already with us, Anthony. Separating weather from climate is something you should teach to your followers and not just make the statement when you think it aids your cause.

    There is no longer any doubt that the tens of thousands who are dying each year in unprecedented heat waves are dying as a consequence of climate change. That is not weather when for decades there has been a steady, and uninterrupted, rise in temperatures.

    Medical authorities tell us that there is an increase in deaths from various diseases that have spread due to the changing climate regimes.

    Heck, some of your acolytes may be dying soon for lack of coffee as the coffee growing regions are reaching the limits of their tolerance to higher temperatures: and are being invaded by a beetle species that could not exist in the lower temperatures that favoured those areas i the past.

    But, the point I made was that it is going to happen in large numbers. There is no doubt of that. Sea level rise, temperature rise; food scarcities; disease spread; water shortage and water wars. All these will take their toll.

    Any person of conscience would be acting to try to mitigate this: not giving comfort to those who persist in the activities that are responsible.

    I have children and grandchildren and I do not appreciate the work of those who would imperil their future.

    Incidentally, I am very well known by name to politicians and some elements of the media. I identify myself to them and pull no punches.

  176. Amused said . . .

    “You align yourselves with those like Morano who advocate acts of of terrorism against scientists to stop research on climate change.

    “Many of your acolytes also have suggested violence against climate researchers and governments that are acting on the certainty of dangerous climate change.”

    Really? Can you cite a single time when Morano advocated a single act of terrorism? Can you cite a single instance of skeptics suggesting violence against climate researchers and governments?

    These claims are always made by Warmists, but they never cough up any evidence. Not a single threatening e-mail they claim to have received; not a single anything other than a claim. Their alleged victimization is nothing more than projection: accusing others of what they themselves engage in on a daily basis.

    I challenge you to go back through all the articles posted here and at Climate Depot to find one, just one, instance of what you claim skeptics do. Then take a trip over to Jo Nova, and try again. The only threats and intimidation you will find come from the AGW True Believers, who spend inordinate amounts of time trolling skeptic sites and calling everyone names.

    And speaking of names, your pitiful handle is obviously as erroneous as you are. You are not amused, you are in a snit because they people you hate (skeptics) are winning the war.

  177. Amused. says:
    October 3, 2010 at 11:11 am

    Seriously, John! What do you mean?

    —————

    Amused,

    I was sincerely, but apparently unsuccessfully, trying to settle down the invective you brought to this open venue. I was worried for you, sincerely.

    I think you believe what you say. OK. I am not questioning that you believe it.

    Many many people, including myself, do not share your belief. You only need to look at the ratio of people across all of blogland who thought negatively of the No Pressure video to those that thought positively of it. What were the 10:10 ideological environmentalists thinking? I have no clue what they could have been thinking.

    Threatening apocalytic / dooms day attitude is one of the reasons over the last 2 decades that civilized people have become being more and more unconvinced of AGW supporter’s views. The more the apocalyptic / dooms day attitude persists the more the civilized people will seek civilized options instead of knee jerk we gotta do something now or we are all gonna die. The failing tactic / strategy of apocalypse / dooms-day is the problem. I would recommend a different strategy; we should use open science and open data and open methodologies and open code and OPEN DISCOURSE to all the AGW supporters and the independent thinkers (a.k.a. skeptics). The sooner and the more then that is better . . . .

    John

  178. Amused says, “millions will die this century”.

    I can go better than that & say that just about everyone alive today will die this century!

    Sloppy thinking Amused.

    Oh and I think I found the out-take of this vid!

    DaveE.

  179. Amused. says:
    October 3, 2010 at 11:11 am
    “[…]Heck, some of your acolytes may be dying soon for lack of coffee as the coffee growing regions are reaching the limits of their tolerance to higher temperatures: and are being invaded by a beetle species that could not exist in the lower temperatures that favoured those areas i the past.[…]”

    Amused, you have to decide for yourself whether you want to deliver a self-parody of a Malthusian here or whether you want to be taken seriously. Now it’s a beetle that threatens us all? Seriously. Ok, lets fire up google news, enter “ecological catastrophe”, take the first hit:

    http://m.theepochtimes.com/index.php?page=content&id=43540

    Now, it’s toxic soil from the Ukraine that will poison the UK, see? The Malthusian game is completely arbitrary.

  180. I do believe what I say, John, and there is the whole canon of science to support that belief. There is not a single study that disagrees with AGW and that has stood up to test.

    Science, methodology, discourse, have all been open from the beginning of these “differences>” It is Anthony and a few like him who have convinced so many who do not actually follow the science that they are not.

    However, for all rational people, that discourse should have ended. It is details that are a question; not the issues of climate change and AGW.

    To consolidate in this post some of the other “arguments:”

    Everyone on either side of this divide deplored that video. It is just a handful of [snip] bloggers who are drumming up hysteria about it. That does not take away from the intentions of the makers who were trying to draw attention to the gravest threat to mankind.

    To the point of “eco terrorism! It is not surprising that these acts are tyaken against the so-called sceptics. It is the “sceptics” who own and operate the oil and gas and other damaging operations. The “terrorists” are people who do not have that resource. Is it surprising that, by the same token, the perpetrators of the polluting or whatever, do not attack the other side. The other side do not have installations to destroy.

    Also, Morano did call for acts of violence against the proponents of AGW. Many researching scientists have received death threats and threats to their families. Only a few scientists are actually public about the issue because of the possibility of being targeted in the same way.

    And Dirk should look into coffee. What I posted is fact. There are just three or four coffee growing regions that are not yet affected. The ridiculous comment about self parody of a Malthusian seems to be about the measure of most of the “sceptics.” Meaningless nonsense!

  181. Amused. says:
    October 3, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    However, for all rational people, that discourse should have ended. It is details that are a question; not the issues of climate change and AGW.

    ————-

    Amused,

    Thanks for your reply.

    It is getting late in the day here on the US east coast for me.

    I think that you are confusing two situations. One obvious situation is where the consensus of AGW supporters claim the science that they produce and support is settled; a tautology. The other situation is where a science product/synthesis / collaboration that encompasses also all the independent non-consensus scientists studying climate science (plus the profession of statistical mathematics /econometrics) where it is clearly not settled.

    I beg to differ about your view that there has been open science; there has not been an open discourse generally. But there is a highly viable one now, : ) , thriving on a pleasantly surprising accelerating pace. This happened/is happening in spite of the actions of the consensus. I can only think that is a great trend for the good of science. I look forward to the evolution of it in open venues. I hope for another renaissance.

    Hey, I suspect we are going to see some support of a new renaissance in climate science from the French Academy of Sciences when their report comes out soon. : )

    Finally, this place is special. It is only here and a relatively few other similar venue blogs where people like you and I can discuss without censorship and control. Even in disagreement with Anthony, we should show respect in this place.

    John

  182. Amused. says on October 3, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    I do believe what I say, John, and there is the whole canon of science to support that belief. There is not a single study that disagrees with AGW and that has stood up to test.

    Oh my, a religious fanatic. Perhaps even a creationist.

  183. Amused said . . .

    “Also, Morano did call for acts of violence against the proponents of AGW. Many researching scientists have received death threats and threats to their families. Only a few scientists are actually public about the issue because of the possibility of being targeted in the same way.”

    Again, show us the money. You can claim anything you want, but where is the evidence? I’m calling your bluff. If skeptics were issuing physical threats to scientists and their families, the police would be arresting the skeptics. But, they aren’t. How come? Because the threats are made up? Because some political-dirty tricks bloggers somewhere are fabricating alleged threats from skeptics and mailing them in? Because the so called scientists in question are having their friends write fake angry letters, all to generate sympathy?

    Go to a Warmist site and see all the horrible things your side wants to do to skeptics, then come back here and try to tell us you are the victims. Nobody is buying it. We’ve seen the lengths to which your side goes, almost every day.

    As for your doomsday prophesies, you need to do some more research. You are becoming hysterical over nothing. Not one of the dire predictions of your side over the past two decades has transpired. Every claim has proved false, and yet you still spout the same rubbish. The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Not here it isn’t; only in your imaginary world of misery.

    Humans cannot destroy the Earth; the planet is self-regulating and self-repairing. You and your band of fanatics cannot do one thing to stop, hasten, or slow climate change, which is a natural process on a scale infinitely larger than all human activity combined. The climate has always changed and always will, and if you think this is a disaster, you need a new dictionary.

    Of all the billions of dollars already spent on “climate change research,” none of it has made any difference whatsoever to the climate. You have not saved one life or prevented one breath of wind. You have, however, contributed to untold human and animal misery across the globe diverting food to useless fuel production, destroying vast tracts of land for idiotic wind farms that kill thens of thousands of birds, denying fossil fuels to Third World countries all in the insane quest for “climate control.” How many families go without necessities to pay for this lunacy? And how much poverty and death will result from carbon caps? Sure, you may say it’s all necessary for the greater good, but you don’t have a clue, and the ends do not justify the means. You are willing to destroy lives supposedly to save them. Please, just off yourself and leave everyone else alone. The people in Haiti eating dirt pies because they can no longer afford grains–thanks to your bunch and its ethanol boondoggle–don’t need your kind of compassion.

    The road to hell really is paved with good intentions. We know, because your side has proved it.

  184. Richard Sharpe,

    Not only that, but like all card carrying alarmists he gets the Scientific Method backwards. CO2=CAGW is their hypothesis. They own it; they must defend it.

    Skeptics have nothing to prove.

  185. I don’t have the time right now, john, but I will take this up again. Thanks for being one of the very few “deniers” who does not get hysterically defensive when called on this. It would be very interesting to see one of those others produce anything that gives support to denial.

    There is none so far as I can find. And I have followed the research for years – all of it.

  186. Charlie Williams says:
    October 4, 2010 at 4:55 am

    This thread is just a storm in a teacup.

    ———-

    Charlie Williams,

    You wish? Hey, in fairy tales wishes do come true. Keep trying, yours might too.

    John

  187. Amused. says:
    October 3, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    I don’t have the time right now, john, but I will take this up again. Thanks for being one of the very few “deniers” who does not get hysterically defensive when called on this. It would be very interesting to see one of those others produce anything that gives support to denial.

    There is none so far as I can find. And I have followed the research for years – all of it.

    ————-

    Amused,

    Good luck.

    Our host here is requesting that commenters not use the “d” word that you used in your last comment. Out of respect for our host, we should not use it.

    But, you are the first to ever directly call me that in my memory (which isn’t what it used to be). : ) Man, I gotta run out and rent a DVD of Schindler’s List again.

    Only last week was the first time I was ever directly called a skeptic. Things in the AGW circles must be getting a little more desperate as the public increasingly realizes the climate situation is not as was claimed by the AGW supporters.

    John

  188. As far as I’m concerned, this video was straight-up advocacy of murdering people for political dissent. Those countries that have banned Nazi groups and views (at least) ought to broaden the ban to cover groups that advocate killing people for their beliefs.

  189. Socialist fanatics have such a keen sense of humor. No doubt Pol Pot would have found blowing up politically deviant kids “extremely funny.” Much more entertaining than putting plastic bags over their heads and watching them suffocate.

Comments are closed.